Sunday, November 18, 2007

Immortal Genes not Immortal DNA

The Selfish Gene
Pg. 35-50
.
November 18, 2007
1:59 P.M.
.
.......In my last blog about the Selfish Gene, I completely misinterpreted Dawkins' message. As I continued reading the "Immortal Coil" chapter, I realized that DNA isn't immortal. DNA does die eventually, however, genes are constantly passed down from generation to generation. Even if you die, another relative or another human being will probably have the genes that died along with you. They might not have your genetic combination, but they will have some genes and another person others. All your dead genes will still exist in other people. I had never looked at it this way, and I found it very interesting. It's true, as crazy as it sounds, genes never die. Some one else always have the genes that died (not all, and not in the same configuration), but they are very much present.
.
........Even if I do agree with Dawkins' point of view regarding gene longetivity, I don't agree with the theorical value he gives to sex. Dawkins calls sex a "bizarre perversion of straightforward replication (p. 43)." He thinks sex is an inefficient way to spread one's genes. Why go through all the trouble of finding a suitable partner and then go through all the trouble of sex? But sex isn't just for reproduction. Sex represents passions and emotions. Humans are a very passionate species; we just don't do things in order to "survive" as a species. I mean, we are driven by emotions: love, greed, ambition, and as corny as it sounds, we do follow our hearts. Sex isn't as superficial as Dawkins makes it sound, it has a much deeper, psychological meaning to humans. If it was only for the species' survival, then it would actually become more of a pressured burden than anything else.
.
.....I also don't agree with Dawkins' point to alter genes in order to prolong human lifespan. I mean, alter the genetic sequences in order to trick the genes to believe your are younger? There world's already overpopulated, the water supply is growing less and less with each day that passes by, why do you want more people to compete in order to survive? That's ridiculous. We need to let things run their course, because our need to intervene in everything in order to prolong our survival is just going to lead to our end.

1 comment:

J. Tangen said...

You're asking all the right questions. Remeber Dawkins farms himself as a scientist. Does that let him avoid problems?

3
3
3